I'm going against my critical brothers and sisters by speaking out on this, but Tyler Perry is probably right. Who is Tyler Perry and what exactly is he right about? He's the director of the recently released and self-referential Tyler Perry's Daddy's Little Girls, which released last Friday. The plot of the film, according to the synopsis (as I haven't seen it), is:

A single father, Monty is a garage mechanic who lives in a poor neighborhood and struggles to make ends meet as he raises his three young daughters on his own.

None of this would be noteworthy or interesting if it wasn't for one salient point. You see, Tyler Perry doesn't screen for us critics. This ruffles feathers because it calls into question our very right to exist. Do people even need us? Before we get into the Tyler Perry issue, I'll give you a little insight into my feelings on movie reviewers in general.

Here we go!

I don't know you, and you don't know me. I'm a random guy on the Internet and you're in your cubicle or at home (hopefully eating butter pecan ice cream). Now, as a random guy (to you), I'm employed in the act of commentary on movies. In general Film.com doesn't review movies, but I review bushels of them for another site I'm associated with, RopeofSilicon.com. I merrily attend press screenings and see free movies, which would seem like "the life" if it weren't for the fact that I probably see about 60 more bad movies a year than you.

My point is you don't know me, and thus if you're checking out a review of mine, it's for a laugh (because I've crushed Ghost Rider) or it's to disagree (because I hate Babel). Either way it's probably not to form an opinion on whether you should actually see the movie because, again, you don't have a personal relationship with me. I hand out advice to people I know all the time, advice that has different levels of credibility because everyone has different taste. My friend Matt and I like similar movies in general. My friend John and I do not. Is this because Matt, like myself, enjoys movies as a form of entertainment, whereas John is as pretentious as all get-out and in general enjoys Eastern European cinema that invariably ends in the protagonist’s death? Most likely yes. But that doesn't make him wrong, that just makes him different. And really the fun of film IS discussing it and laughing about disagreements or quoting the things you loved together. If you really want to see something no review will stop you, and if you're dead set against a film no review will sway you. Which is all fine and good.

So why then does anyone need reviewers? Why should press screenings even be held? This is a simple equation and can be handled with one word: publicity. I may hate Ghost Rider but I can't deny it exists because I've written about it. Additionally, Ghost Rider opinions, reviews, and news exist on every movie site in the cosmos, and with that comes an awareness level. The 26 percent Ghosty is rocking over at Rotten Tomatoes matters not a whit, as it cruised to $51 million over a four-day weekend. It didn't matter for Norbit last weekend either. So while I can say that negative reviews don't always sink a movie, I'm not so convinced the accompanying publicity isn't important.

Which, finally, brings us back to Tyler Perry and his movie Daddy's Little Girls. It's made $20 million so far and will probably finish around $35 million, and this on a budget of about 10 bucks, I would guess. There wasn't a huge marketing push, probably because it didn't need one. Tyler Perry has fans, and those fans know when he has a movie out. Last year his film Madea's Family Reunion made $63 million on a $6 million budget, and guess what? Critics didn't get to screen it beforehand. Let me tell you guys, if you can make films that make ten times their budget, then Hollywood is going to let you do whatever the hell you please. You could probably have the critics rounded up and individually kicked in the shins for that kind of cash (please don't, though). Why should he put up with potential negative reviews when he doesn't need the publicity to get the word out? Why should Lionsgate invest tens of millions of dollars (Hi, Ghost Rider!) when people are already aware and planning on seeing it? The answer is simple. They shouldn't. So they don't. Even better, the one thing I really want to ding Perry on, putting his name in the title, is a stroke of genius too. If you aren't going to saturate the airwaves or play the critical game, how will people know about your movie? Easy, put your name in the title. I'll give credit where it's due: Perry has made all the right moves.

The good news for me and my brethren is that there will always be movies that require the entire world to be aware of them. Spider-Man can't afford to miss any marketing opportunity, positive or negative. So it looks like for the time being Tyler and the reviewer community can peacefully coexist. But at this point, to my fellow reviewers, I say we stow our complaints about having to pay to see Tyler Perry's movies if we want to critique them. The simple fact is we need Tyler Perry more than he needs us, mostly because clearly he doesn't need us at all.

Recommend (0)

|  Comments (0)

|  Email

|  Share

Share  Facebook Digg del.icio.us